SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.
U. R. Kantharaju S/o Sri Ramanna - Appellant
Vs.
State by Mandya Rural Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 199 OF 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 2089 of 2016
Decided On : 30-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Harsha Kumar Gowda H.R., Sri. S.G.Rajendra Reddy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, HCGP, Sri. Lokapal Rao H.S., Adv.

The right of private defense applies when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to life, allowing for necessary force in self-defense, as established in the judgment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, and 34 - Appeals arising from convictions and acquittals in two sessions cases concerning a violent altercation over land use - The trial court convicted three brothers for murder and attempted murder, while acquitting one brother of attempted murder - The incident involved a dispute over transporting sugarcane through land, leading to a fatal assault on Ramaiah and injuries to Prakasha - The court evaluated the credibility of witnesses and the nature of injuries sustained by both sides. (Paras 1-54)

(B) Right of Private Defence - The court discussed the applicability of the right of private defence under Section 100 IPC, concluding that the accused acted in self-defense against an aggressive attack from Ramaiah and Prakasha - The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, which is a critical factor in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case. (Paras 39-50)

(C)

Findings of Court:
The court acquitted the three brothers of murder and attempted murder, citing the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims and the reasonable apprehension of danger faced by the accused. The acquittal of Prakasha was reversed, and he was convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to Kantharaju. (Paras 51-54)

(D)

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside for three accused, and Prakasha convicted under Section 324 IPC with probation ordered.

JUDGMENT :

These two appeals have arisen from judgments dated 22.11.2016 in two sessions cases, S.C.53/1999 and S.C.19/2014 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The appellants in Crl.A.2089/2016 faced trial in S.C. 53/1999 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 IPC and have stood convicted and sentenced for those offences. The appellant in Crl.A.199/2017 has questioned the correctness of judgment in S.C.19/2014 acquitting accused no.2 of the offence under section 307 of IPC.

2. The case projected in S.C.53/1999 was, three brothers namely Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were transporting harvested sugarcane in a bullock cart. When the cart came near the land of Ganesh (DW3), Ramaiah, the deceased in this case stopped the cart, took objection for driving the bullock cart through his land and questioned Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu about it. At that time the three brothers assaulted Ramaiah with weapons such as a pickaxe and a chopper. When Prakasha, the nephew of Ramaiah interfered for the rescue of his uncle i.e., Ramaiah, Kantharaju and Chandru assaulted him. Ramaiah was first taken to District Hospital, Mandya. On the advice of doctors, when he was being shifted to Nimhans, Bengaluru, he died. Prakasha sustained grievous injury. On the basis of a report made by Rathnamma, the wife of the deceased, FIR was registered in Cr.No.271/1998 and after investigation, Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307 read with section 34 IPC.

3. S.C.No.19/2014 also relates to the same incident. Report given by Kantharaju was registered in Cr.No.270/1998. He complained to the police that his two brothers viz., Chandru and Siddaramu had been to the land to transport the harvested sugarcane to the Alemane (jaggery factory) in the morning of 19.10.1998. Since they did not return from the land for quite a long time, he went towards the land with his labourer Siddaraju on a scooter. On the way he saw Ramaiah and Prakasha having stopped the bullock cart and questioning his brothers as to why they brought the bullock cart passing through his land. In that course Ramaiah pulled out Chandru from the cart and then tried to assault him with a machete. Seeing this Kantharaju interfered to his brother’s rescue, and at that time Ramaiah gave a blow on his forehead and right cheek. When Siddaramu rushed to his rescue, Ramaiah assaulted him with the same machete on his chest and left forearm. The labourer Siddaraju interfered to pacify the situation. Kantharaju took his brother Siddaramu to the hospital at Mandya. While they were in Mandya, they received information from Krishnegowda and Nagaraju that the supporters of Ramaiah had set fire to their sugarcane fields and the Alemane.

4. Pertaining to Crime No.270/1998, the police filed ‘B’ report after investigation. Therefore Kantharaju filed a protest petition to the ‘B’ report. After holding an enquiry on the protest petition the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and secured the presence of Prakasha by issuing process. He committed the case to Sessions Court where it was registered as S.C.No.19/2014.

5. Two cases having arisen from the same incident, were tried by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. In S.C.No.53/1999 Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were arrayed as accused 1 to 3 respectively. In S.C.No.19/2014 Prakasha faced trial as accused no.2.

6. In S.C.No.53/1999 the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, PWs1 to 18 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P17 and the material objects as per MOs1 to 9. The defence also examined three witnesses DWs1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits as per Exs.D1 to 22. After assessing the evidence the trial court held the three accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of IPC, and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the off

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top